OPINION: Nintendo need to succeed in isolation.

This is just an opinion piece. It is what I think Nintendo need to do to grow and succeed into the future, staying independent and continuing to create and produce their own product on their own systems. I obviously hope for a conversation, so please tell me your views. Keep in mind, outside of JRP, Strategy and Car Racing games, Nintendo gives me all I need, as all the other genres mentioned further down hold little interest to me.

Nintendo need to succeed in isolation.

3RD Party developers will never be interested in Nintendo.Nintendo need to be self contained, able to exist entirely on their own work. What has been shown over and over is that the days of 3rd Party developers putting their ‘main’ games on a Nintendo console ended in the 90s with the SNES. Handheld consoles are different proposition, but even that appears to have reached its peak with the DS, with certain exceptions, western developers are largely ignoring the 3DS as well.

There is no point pining for the latest iteration in a major franchise making its way to the latest Nintendo home console. The main reason is that the developers have created a self-fulfilling prophecy; that it won’t sell. They then create a product less than the one on another console and blame the Nintendo gamers for not buying it. That created a vicious circle that has led us to now.

The excuses for not making a Nintendo version have been a moving target. Think about the Wii U Gamepad as being a hurdle to making a multiplatform version. It is supposedly too hard, yet they don’t even have to use the Gamepad if they don’t want, as they could simply make a standard version that uses the Pro Controller, or if they want to make the leap, just use the Gamepad for the obvious, like maps and equipment, not unlike many DS games.

Some classic examples of the intransigent nature of the developers are some of the recent HD remakes. Tales of Symphonia was a Nintendo console game, yet it is only on the PS3. Square-Enix had a great opportunity to put the HD versions of Kingdom Hearts and Final Fantasy XII, yet they chose not to. There are so many more examples; the only conclusion can be that they don’t want to support Nintendo. We only have to remember Soul Calibur selling more on the Gamecube than elsewhere to show that with the right game, a game can sell well.

Building a bigger Nintendo.With an acceptance this reality, Nintendo needs to frame its future around being self-contained, with any 3rd Party product as a bonus, not a necessity. However, for that to occur, Nintendo needs more teams and in particular, teams in Europe and America, to cater for the much larger market outside of Japan.

I don’t believe that Nintendo need to splash out and buy developers, as they can simply create teams from scratch, based around a core of well-respected people. By supporting them, much like they did with Platinum, they could nurture a new Rare, a team that will bring the much-needed variety that Nintendo need, for their existing market as well as creating new markets.

Collaboration and acquisition is still worthwhile.This doesn’t mean that Nintendo should ignore other developers, through either collaboration work or simple acquisitions. Collaborations work to keep good relationships with the other players in the market, as long as that is a proper two-way street. If a good developer comes to Nintendo with a decent proposition, then they would be insane to ignore it. Also an opportunity to acquire an existing business, at the right price with the right IP is a smart business move, such as bringing Capcom into Nintendo’s business if they have the chance.

The genres Nintendo need to create and succeed in.Nintendo have some obvious holes in its line-up. That in itself isn’t problem, as what they do create, they do very well. There is no point in the current Nintendo teams creating games they have no interest in, better they do what they do well. There should be a strategy in place to broaden the markets they need to give their consoles greater appeal. I am not going to go into great detail, but rather, just give an overview of genres, with the types games they would benefit from creating new IP within. The benefit of owning the IP is simply that they no longer have to compete with the other consoles for a share of the multiplatform market and importantly, they own it, building a solid portfolio across the market.

Open World Action:Games like GTA, Saint’s Row and Red Dead Redemption.

Survival Horror:Games like Resident Evil, The Last of Us, Bioshock, Left For Dead and Dead Space.

Simulators/Strategy:Sims, Civilisation, ANNO, The Settlers, Total War and Age of Empires.

How to get into the sports game market.I have left the one area that Nintendo find it near impossible to compete in, and that is sport. EA pretty much own everything and we all know EA is not friendly with Nintendo. It is such a big market, there is so much money involved and Nintendo fans are forced to another console just to play them. So how do you get around the cost of the licence?

Firstly, we are talking about the major sports, Football, US Football, Golf, Basketball, Tennis, Hockey, Baseball, and maybe Boxing and Wrestling. We are also talking about adult style games; realistic graphics and game play, as well as many modes, lots of teams and players.

Assuming it does get around the licence issue, you make quality, deep game versions of these sports, which allow you to create the teams, the players and the uniforms, as well as naming it whatever you want to name it. So theoretically, as a player I could create Manchester United, its players, uniforms and whatever league they re playing in, or the World Cup for that matter, by recreating that through the game. Nintendo then has not breached the licence, but the players can.

This could apply to golf, where you create a player, who in the end looks amazingly like Tiger Woods, but isn’t, but I name him Tiger Woods. I think you can see where I am going with this, or at least I hope you do. All they have to do is give the games a name that sticks, such as Nintendo Golf, although I am sure they could come up with something better, but use that across all of the sports. As long as it plays as well as the licenced game, then it is a worthy competitor.

Conclusions:I want Nintendo to be Nintendo, not Sony and not Microsoft. I want them to offer me a largely unique experience like it has always done, but I also ant it to broaden the base that it appeals to, to ensure it can stand alone. It can only do that by creating games that appeal to those markets and that is best done by creating teams who specialise in those areas, bringing quality games to the system. It doesn’t have to ditch 3rd Party developers, it just has to assume they are unlikely to be part of their future and plan accordingly.

Last edited by oldschool on Sat 14 Feb 2015 - 11:38; edited 1 time in total

I couldn't agree more with most of this, oldschool. The sad thing, for me, is that Nintendo almost at the very beginning tried to diversify its roster on the NES by introducing a line of sports games: Baseball, Tennis, Golf, NES Open Tournament Golf, Soccer, etc. One can only assume that these didn't sell too well (indeed, and I can confirm that at least two of the aforementioned games were shit), but at least they were trying.

Then there were pushes on games like Square's Rad Racer, which even got its chance in the spotlight alongside Tetris and Super Mario Bros. in the infamous 1990 Nintendo Championship Cart. In short, Nintendo was really pushing Non-Nintendo games of the right quality back in this time. We all know they still do this now with teams such as Retro Studios and Platinum (and even the huge push they had on LEGO City: Undercover), but the difference these days is that the masses aren't really listening. Most people who own a Nintendo console bought it in anticipation of this output in the first place.

Basically, for me Nintendo needs to do two things: create a killer game in at least a couple of the missing genres* you listed, oldschool, and it then needs to start advertising as a company that has something for everyone. Remember the Genesis ads from the nineties? They might've been a bit coarse, but they displayed a lot of diverse footage from the console's library. It can't all be sunshine and rainbows.

*As much as I hate to say this, I think Nintendo desperately needs an FPS franchise with the popularity of Smash, and a great sandbox game.

Some of those genres they have done things OS like LEGO City for open-world or Splatoon coming for shooter and they have adventure game it's called Zelda. Only thing with all these even LEGO City there all Nintendo style of game with the games you all point out there all have a mature tonne to them.

Which would be good if the Nintendo had that sort of game but that's not Nintendo, they like to make games that can appeal to everyone take a Splatoon it appeals to me as it's a colourful multiplayer based shooter with some interesting mechanics, it could appeal to little Timmy because of the colourful characters.

Gears of Nintendo wouldn't and I personally don't buy Nintendo consoles for them or 3rd party game like a COD (I do own both CODs on the U) I buy a Nintendo console for Nintendo games as there games are still the best.

And this comes to the bit why I own a PS4 as well, I do like Sonys exclusive as well but I want to play the mature tonne games you bring up by 3rd party's having there own COD still won't be COD, I need a PS4 or a ONE for that and that's where everyone else is playing COD.

So I think in the end of the day most people will buy two consoles a PS4 or ONE and a Wii U same next gen and play everything that isn't Nintendo exclusive on the PS4 or ONE and nothing will change that as a mock FIFA still won't be FIFA.

So, when people talk about Nintendo going into genres I have no interest in (stealth, FPS, serious racing), I kinda look sideways and try not to meet their eyes. Pester me a bit more, and I'll probably say that as long as they're doing enough to stay afloat, what need have they to do things they're not necessarily so good at? Fans of the genres have their other formats to play, Nintendo fans have Nintendo-ish games, the company doesn't die - everybody wins!

I do agree with your basic premise, up to a point. For one reason or another (console's image, poor communication, behind on the power wagon, companies being asshats), most of the big Western developers have abandoned Ninty, and there seems to be little point in them trying to repair bridges so thoroughly burned.

However, I reckon that Ninty have two areas where they can avoid isolation: Japanese devs., like Platinum and Namco (maybe not Capcom so much), and indies. They need to work on their support with indies, but I reckon they can still make good on these areas.

Not that these will build on several of the genres you describe; but I like I said at the start, I am a selfish person, and these are largely the genres I have no interest in.

Also, I maintain that Nintendo is not best suited to developing games of those varieties, and without the requisite collaborators for your FPSes and your racing sims, I don't think they'll be able to without some serious rebuilding and resulting finance injections: finance injections that I'd rather see going into other things.

The other possibility is that they'll reinvent genres themselves, like they seem to be doing with Splatoon. Won't attract the existing market to them, but might attract me to them!

One final point: since when do Nintendo not do (action) adventure? What is Zelda, if not an action adventure series?

...Make that two final points. I wonder, OS, whether this is something that could have gone into the GNamer Writes Site?

Some of those genres they have done things OS like LEGO City for open-world or Splatoon coming for shooter and they have adventure game it's called Zelda. Only thing with all these even LEGO City there all Nintendo style of game with the games you all point out there all have a mature tonne to them.

Which would be good if the Nintendo had that sort of game but that's not Nintendo, they like to make games that can appeal to everyone take a Splatoon it appeals to me as it's a colourful multiplayer based shooter with some interesting mechanics, it could appeal to little Timmy because of the colourful characters.

Gears of Nintendo wouldn't and I personally don't buy Nintendo consoles for them or 3rd party game like a COD (I do own both CODs on the U) I buy a Nintendo console for Nintendo games as there games are still the best.

And this comes to the bit why I own a PS4 as well, I do like Sonys exclusive as well but I want to play the mature tonne games you bring up by 3rd party's having there own COD still won't be COD, I need a PS4 or a ONE for that and that's where everyone else is playing COD.

So I think in the end of the day most people will buy two consoles a PS4 or ONE and a Wii U same next gen and play everything that isn't Nintendo exclusive on the PS4 or ONE and nothing will change that as a mock FIFA still won't be FIFA.

I know they have more or less a foot in some of those doors mas, but they need more than a foot, they need the whole body. One adventure game, Zelda isn't enough, nor the type that some people are looking for. I think in these conversations, we need to separate ourselves from it, think outside of ourselves. Also, I don't think the future will be the big 3 and PC, as like all technology, it is fragmenting dramatically and Nintendo need to think about the space it wishes to fill. In reality, I think Sony and XBox are the least likely to survive in their current form, more likely to morph or merge into something completely different as a game delivery service. I am of the view that Nintendo is brand most likely to last, but how it services that market will need to change.

As for the mock games, I don't think it needs to be like that. I have a much bigger concept in mind and it isn't new. For Gran Turismo, you have Forza, for FIFA, you have Pro Evo, for WRC, you have DIRT, for GTA, you have Saint's Row et cetera. You can create an all new IP that competes directly with the franchise leader, if you have the right concept, the right game and the right marketing. It can't be 'Game' light. It starts out in the same market, but develops it's own identity, hopefully improving on what others do.

I would love to have GameCube 2 which like the Cube got the 3rd party games and I didn't really need a PS2 & Xbox (I did as I'm a GAMER)

But it's not going to happen, that's why I agree with Balla as long as Nintendo keep making profits, I don't think they really care about competing against everyone else. They do there own thing and that's what they will always do.

I agree gaming will change in the future, MS wanted to change it early but we know the backlash from that and we've seen from consoles sales people want consoles as there was a lot of gaming is dead when the Wii U game out. But I do think MS will be the first to go more like STEAM in the future.

Also about brand yeah I see Nintendo as the Disney of gaming, whom also kinda do what they want but they have bought up Marvel & Lucas so have all these huge IPs now, Nintendo could do the same if they bought up SEGA & Capcom for example and maybe some quality indie devs like Yacht Club games.

So, when people talk about Nintendo going into genres I have no interest in (stealth, FPS, serious racing), I kinda look sideways and try not to meet their eyes. Pester me a bit more, and I'll probably say that as long as they're doing enough to stay afloat, what need have they to do things they're not necessarily so good at? Fans of the genres have their other formats to play, Nintendo fans have Nintendo-ish games, the company doesn't die - everybody wins!

I do agree with your basic premise, up to a point. For one reason or another (console's image, poor communication, behind on the power wagon, companies being asshats), most of the big Western developers have abandoned Ninty, and there seems to be little point in them trying to repair bridges so thoroughly burned.

However, I reckon that Ninty have two areas where they can avoid isolation: Japanese devs., like Platinum and Namco (maybe not Capcom so much), and indies. They need to work on their support with indies, but I reckon they can still make good on these areas.

Not that these will build on several of the genres you describe; but I like I said at the start, I am a selfish person, and these are largely the genres I have no interest in.

Also, I maintain that Nintendo is not best suited to developing games of those varieties, and without the requisite collaborators for your FPSes and your racing sims, I don't think they'll be able to without some serious rebuilding and resulting finance injections: finance injections that I'd rather see going into other things.

The other possibility is that they'll reinvent genres themselves, like they seem to be doing with Splatoon. Won't attract the existing market to them, but might attract me to them!

One final point: since when do Nintendo not do (action) adventure? What is Zelda, if not an action adventure series?

...Make that two final points. I wonder, OS, whether this is something that could have gone into the GNamer Writes Site?

Balladeer, as I pointed out, I have very little interest in most of these genres as well, but in this endeavour, I am looking at it as objectively as I possibly can. I don't think that being niche can work in the long term, as I think it will just see the consumer base shrink over time. Perhaps think of it like cable television, where you have different channels to appeal to different people. Of course most of us will have more than one of the channels we watch and it is the same for games. If cable had a single channel with a limited range of product, it would fail.

Indies are great, but they are also very niche. If you could grow some of those indie developers into producing fully realised big games, that would be great, as it is those headline games that will still get the attention of the consumer. It is also about having those products exclusive to your hardware, as that is how you bring people in, wanting to play that game they really like.

I agree with you that Nintendo can't make those games, but I did say that, in fact I said they should stick with what they are good at. It is about building team to make these other games, teams that are owned and financed by Nintendo. There are plenty of good developers out there who perhaps were part of making CoD or FIFA, who form the basis of that team and specialise in what they are good at. Zelda isn't enough for the adventure genre. One game every 4 or so years isn't going to cut it. They don't need more Zelda games, they need different IP, doing different things for different markets, again, where new teams come in.

Lastly Balladeer, it appears that I never really seem to know where to put anything here (I am not as prolific as a poster as the rest of you). When I looked at the GNamer Community Forum it says, "Got an opinion?", so I figured, yes I do and this was it. Do you really think I should have just plonked it in the middle of the thread you linked? I am left feeling like I have done the wrong thing and I don't quite understand why, given my terrible social skills.

I'm about to start studying, so I'll need to come back to your first three paragraphs.

As to the fourth, though, it absolutely could have gone here. I wasn't referring to the thread I linked to: more the site it refers to, http://www.gintendo-namer.squarespace.com/ . We put our big articles and opinion pieces up there, and I reckoned this was big enough. Nothing wrong with it being here, though!

You bring up about Zelda every 4 years which isn't kinda true a New Zelda on a console Yes that is.

But take Uncharted which is a action adventure game that's arguably there biggest series, that's about every 4 years and take MS there biggest is Halo okay we've had a lot of Halo games like we've had a lot of Zelda Universe games but a core Halo, 4 was 3 years ago.

So they both have there biggest game every sort of 4 years but they do have other games like just Nintendo whom has more exclusive (some are timed) on the U then MS has on ONE, it's because of the 3rd parties that the ONE has at least a new game month and the console sold as the dude bros want to play FIFA/NFL depending where you in the world & COD and all there dudes are on the ONE.

There mates aren't coming to the U to play fake FIFA there going to stick to the ONE and MS nothing will change that.

I would love to have GameCube 2 which like the Cube got the 3rd party games and I didn't really need a PS2 & Xbox (I did as I'm a GAMER)

But it's not going to happen, that's why I agree with Balla as long as Nintendo keep making profits, I don't think they really care about competing against everyone else. They do there own thing and that's what they will always do.

I agree gaming will change in the future, MS wanted to change it early but we know the backlash from that and we've seen from consoles sales people want consoles as there was a lot of gaming is dead when the Wii U game out. But I do think MS will be the first to go more like STEAM in the future.

Also about brand yeah I see Nintendo as the Disney of gaming, whom also kinda do what they want but they have bought up Marvel & Lucas so have all these huge IPs now, Nintendo could do the same if they bought up SEGA & Capcom for example and maybe some quality indie devs like Yacht Club games.

I think we may be viewing the Gamecube with rose-tinted glasses. As I remember it, yes, it got a lot of the usual multiplatform games, but it missed an awful lot as well, or as we get now, gimped versions, as there was no proper internet, unlike Xbox. If you loved JRPG, you had to have a PS2. If you want shooting games, you had to have an Xbox. Also, the games arriving for the Gamecube really dried up in the second half of its life, and some arrived much later than their competitors. It was an improvement over the N64, but the peak dropped off very quickly at this point.

These developers who don't do Nintendo will just follow Sony and Microsoft to where they go and Nintendo can't just follow them, or try to out-do them. I certainly agree on the Disney similarity with Nintendo and Nintendo would be served well by signing up some exclusive deals, and buying up companies (Square, Capcom, Sega and Namco Bandai) when possible, mainly for the IP and existing teams. Trouble is, as much financial trouble Sony is in, they will still throw more money than Nintendo is willing to spend if they want a company and look at the crazy money Microsoft paid to get Minecraft.

Nintendo can't continue to do what they are doing if that market is shrinking, even if they are currently making a profit. Whilst they have enormous cash reserves, seeing their value as a company diminish will eventually force them to change. Rather than wait for the inevitable, it has to be positioning itself for the future.

You bring up about Zelda every 4 years which isn't kinda true a New Zelda on a console Yes that is.

But take Uncharted which is a action adventure game that's arguably there biggest series, that's about every 4 years and take MS there biggest is Halo okay we've had a lot of Halo games like we've had a lot of Zelda Universe games but a core Halo, 4 was 3 years ago.

So they both have there biggest game every sort of 4 years but they do have other games like just Nintendo whom has more exclusive (some are timed) on the U then MS has on ONE, it's because of the 3rd parties that the ONE has at least a new game month and the console sold as the dude bros want to play FIFA/NFL depending where you in the world & COD and all there dudes are on the ONE.

There mates aren't coming to the U to play fake FIFA there going to stick to the ONE and MS nothing will change that.

As you point out, Microsoft and Sony have the luxury of not producing many of their own games, so the ones they do make fit in with all the other games that come out across the life cycle. That is not a luxury Nintendo has, and that is why it does need to address that. It can't wait for others to do it, they aren't and won', so they need to be looking at a full range of product, spaced out over the longer term. You are right to say that it will be difficult to bring the FIFA/Madde or CoD/Battlefield players over, but if a game is well made, marketed well and gets the right exposure, it will bring over some, like those who stop playing CoD for a while when the new Battlefield, Destiny or Far Cry comes out. If they like it, they will return and you have developed a base that you build on. Doing nothing will get you nothing. Change will only occur when they make a product gamers want to play. You may create a situation where the family feels no need to buy another console as the Nintendo reasonably satisfies the needs of all, sport, racing and shooting, along with the classic Nintendo games the whole family can play together. At this time, Dad is probably going to have to have a PS4, as there really isn't another option. Nintendo doesn't have to be the second console.

I had all three consoles that gen and the Cube did have most of the 3rd party games like all the 007 games, Burnout's, FIFA/NFL/NBA/NHL from EA & 2k, ISS, Tomb Raider, Tony Hawks, Need for Speed, Prince of Persia, The Simpson games, Star Wars games, Timesplitters, Tom Clancy, WWE games and licensed games.

Also this, so I don't think there's any need to worry about Nintendo going anywhere.

Buried in reams of financial data is the revelation that Nintendo have 812.8 billion Yen (£6.7/$10.5 billion) in the bank – enough for it to take a 20 billion Yen loss (£163/$257 million) every year until 2052. Then there’s almost 469 billion Yen (£3.8/$6.0 billion) held in premises, equipment and investments. When that runs out – we’re in the year 2075 by this point – they’ve got some of the most valuable intellectual property in gaming to sell off before the company goes out of business.

I would like Nintendo to buy up people but Iwata has said before that it's not there strategy or something like that.

Yeah it would bring a few a across but I don't think that many would buy a Wii U just for COD like game, people whom have a PS4 and COD already have a PS4 so it's easy for them to just pick up and play another shooter but there still on the sytem they've got with this vast library of games out. The U doesn't have that it already has the smallest library and if that doesn't appeal to people already and what's coming then nothings going to change there mind.

Like I've post in the ONE thread as there is now games that appeal to me on that stem and ones coming but the U should have that attitude already for people.

But I am guessing your talking about the next console which I think Nintendo need to get on the phone to EA, Activision & Ubisoft and asking them what they want out of console and get them on board ASAP.

Balladeer, as I pointed out, I have very little interest in most of these genres as well, but in this endeavour, I am looking at it as objectively as I possibly can. I don't think that being niche can work in the long term, as I think it will just see the consumer base shrink over time. Perhaps think of it like cable television, where you have different channels to appeal to different people. Of course most of us will have more than one of the channels we watch and it is the same for games. If cable had a single channel with a limited range of product, it would fail.

Indies are great, but they are also very niche. If you could grow some of those indie developers into producing fully realised big games, that would be great, as it is those headline games that will still get the attention of the consumer. It is also about having those products exclusive to your hardware, as that is how you bring people in, wanting to play that game they really like.

I agree with you that Nintendo can't make those games, but I did say that, in fact I said they should stick with what they are good at. It is about building team to make these other games, teams that are owned and financed by Nintendo. There are plenty of good developers out there who perhaps were part of making CoD or FIFA, who form the basis of that team and specialise in what they are good at. Zelda isn't enough for the adventure genre. One game every 4 or so years isn't going to cut it. They don't need more Zelda games, they need different IP, doing different things for different markets, again, where new teams come in.

Well I still have the most limited possible range of telly ever, so that analogy doesn't work for me! I don't think that sticking to a "niche", or alternatively "what you're good at", need result in failure so long as the niche remains big enough.

Now, whether it will is another matter. I think that Nintendo's current strategy of "stick to the niche, do it really well" is keeping them above water for now, albeit they're not soaring. I'm no analyst, and I'm not going try to predict the future: however, neither the Gamecube, nor the Wii U, nor the encroaching army of mobile gamers, have killed them yet.

Big indies have started to attract consumer attention: No Man's Sky took pride of place at E3. They're not going to be able to take on the triple-A world at FPSes and the like (ohaithar Ironfall), but they're a way to branch out from Nintendo's "core" business that seems more feasible than going full UbiSoft, say.

And I think I've answered your third paragraph's meat already, albeit in my non-objective way: the money needed to set up a team to beat CoD/FIFA at their own game could go into other things that I'd rather see, and that could also help. Develop the next Yokai Watch (and actually translate the damn thing)! Develop a console with the power and capability to play GTAVI (and simultaneously make bigger better Nintendo games)! Develop a killer app. for that console, so that the press isn't decrying it from release! Do some damn advertising for the console!

As for Zelda, I think that's just a miscommunication: in other genres, where Nintendo have a single key franchise, you mention that and say "apart from". You didn't with Zelda.

I see what you mean about the small number of adventure games, although that is true for most genres (apart from platforming, natch). I think that's one genre that, if they wanted to, they could pull off in-house, or at least delegate to their key teams: their skill with Zelda shows this.

I had all three consoles that gen and the Cube did have most of the 3rd party games like all the 007 games, Burnout's, FIFA/NFL/NBA/NHL from EA & 2k, ISS, Tomb Raider, Tony Hawks, Need for Speed, Prince of Persia, The Simpson games, Star Wars games, Timesplitters, Tom Clancy, WWE games and licensed games.

Also this, so I don't think there's any need to worry about Nintendo going anywhere.

Buried in reams of financial data is the revelation that Nintendo have 812.8 billion Yen (£6.7/$10.5 billion) in the bank – enough for it to take a 20 billion Yen loss (£163/$257 million) every year until 2052. Then there’s almost 469 billion Yen (£3.8/$6.0 billion) held in premises, equipment and investments. When that runs out – we’re in the year 2075 by this point – they’ve got some of the most valuable intellectual property in gaming to sell off before the company goes out of business.

I would like Nintendo to buy up people but Iwata has said before that it's not there strategy or something like that.

Yeah it would bring a few a across but I don't think that many would buy a Wii U just for COD like game, people whom have a PS4 and COD already have a PS4 so it's easy for them to just pick up and play another shooter but there still on the sytem they've got with this vast library of games out. The U doesn't have that it already has the smallest library and if that doesn't appeal to people already and what's coming then nothings going to change there mind.

Like I've post in the ONE thread as there is now games that appeal to me on that stem and ones coming but the U should have that attitude already for people.

But I am guessing your talking about the next console which I think Nintendo need to get on the phone to EA, Activision & Ubisoft and asking them what they want out of console and get them on board ASAP.

Yes they did have a lot of games on the Gamecube, comparative to now, but I still believe they dropped away long before the end of the cycle, the rot that would continue started at that point, despite the fact that it had more power than the PS2 and nearly as much as the Xbox. Most of those games just sold better elsewhere, which is why it fell away.

I don't think for a second that Nintendo is going away, as I am aware of their cash reserves, but they are a business like any, that must continue to grow, or at minimum, maintain, in order to continue to succeed. Sales can reach a point that is not sustainable, and something will eventually have to change. A good business can read the headwinds and make adjustments before problems overwhelm them.

Balladeer wrote:

Well I still have the most limited possible range of telly ever, so that analogy doesn't work for me! I don't think that sticking to a "niche", or alternatively "what you're good at", need result in failure so long as the niche remains big enough.

Now, whether it will is another matter. I think that Nintendo's current strategy of "stick to the niche, do it really well" is keeping them above water for now, albeit they're not soaring. I'm no analyst, and I'm not going try to predict the future: however, neither the Gamecube, nor the Wii U, nor the encroaching army of mobile gamers, have killed them yet.

Big indies have started to attract consumer attention: No Man's Sky took pride of place at E3. They're not going to be able to take on the triple-A world at FPSes and the like (ohaithar Ironfall), but they're a way to branch out from Nintendo's "core" business that seems more feasible than going full UbiSoft, say.

And I think I've answered your third paragraph's meat already, albeit in my non-objective way: the money needed to set up a team to beat CoD/FIFA at their own game could go into other things that I'd rather see, and that could also help. Develop the next Yokai Watch (and actually translate the damn thing)! Develop a console with the power and capability to play GTAVI (and simultaneously make bigger better Nintendo games)! Develop a killer app. for that console, so that the press isn't decrying it from release! Do some damn advertising for the console!

As for Zelda, I think that's just a miscommunication: in other genres, where Nintendo have a single key franchise, you mention that and say "apart from". You didn't with Zelda.

I see what you mean about the small number of adventure games, although that is true for most genres (apart from platforming, natch). I think that's one genre that, if they wanted to, they could pull off in-house, or at least delegate to their key teams: their skill with Zelda shows this.

I agree about niche Balla, wholeheartedly, if you have a unique offering that a large enough audience is interested in, then you can sustain a very healthy business around that. There is the issue of how much your competitors can compete in that area, by outspending you. You rightly point out that the Gamecube and Wii U hasn't killed them, and we know they too much money for that to be an issue, but at least they always make a profit, unlike Microsoft and Sony. Even if they don't make mega-bucks from their home console, I personally don't think it matters that much, as you could see it as complimentary to the more important portable market. No home console in my view is potentially damaging to the portable market, and I don't think gamers properly understand that.

If Nintendo went the Ubisoft or EA route, they would actually lose me, so that isn't what I am saying, but I agree with many of your points about what the next console should be like. Whilst I am personally satisfied with the power the Wii U has, if they could have managed a similar power to the others, and still had their Gamepad, I would likely be happier. However, not for a single second even with those circumstances would there be a GTAVI on it, let alone anything that has come out so far. That is just an illusion, which in effect is the whole point of my Opinion piece.

I want to point out that I really mean the word, 'like' when I used that. A game 'like' CoD isn't a CoD clone. It means like someone creating Crysis for the same market, something new, something different, but in the end similar. That applies to any game where you compete with the existing market leader. If you are successful in that creation, you build on it. Before CoD, I am pretty sure there was something else that it came in to compete with, just as Forza successfully broke the GT market.

One aspect you mention in your reply is something that bugs me about Nintendo; games not being translated. This is a really quick and easy way for Nintendo to bring a much bigger library to its players, with possibly low costs. The number of obscure Japanese games that end up translated for the Vita make Nintendo look pathetic. For me, all they need to do is avoid changing the voicing completely and simply just add subtitles. That's it. The audience that want to play these games don't care about English voicing. How hard is it to just add subtitles? They can do them in relatively low run numbers for retail and then have digital only from there. If they did this at the same time it was made for the Japanese market (not hard), then they could release those games at the same time. Plus, get rid of region-lock!

They didn't bring tales series to the Wii U because it didn't sell well with tales of symphonia dawn of the new world on the Wii~! They moved there games to playstation now that making profit than the Wii which didn't get many players back than like playstation 3 so they moved all there games and newest ones to the playstation as you know with the bundle of tales of symphonia.

Well my view toewards nintendo to succeed could be 3rd world party really, I mean SEGA failed to do so and what got them? of course I don't need to say really everyone knows. If they don't act with the Wii U it will crash which I don't want to happen. If they don't want to make 3rd world party than bring more nintendo characters to the console instead of it standing there of dust, bring more games out to be used for the market of the console. Fire emblem is huge for nintendo so they making money from them and seeing xenoblase chronicles X is amazing back again. Who knows we mite see The last story 2 in the future. Nintendo do like repeating the same games in every console which can be great but nothing new with them? are they really running out of ideas? I like that they are unique and different from the other two consoles but they need ideas to keep it alive. It's the same with everything else in the market, they make new inventions and ideas to the table. Come on nintendo you can do it! I believe in you.